Science, as you suggested, cannot be copyright. A non-fiction book, a book about science for example, can be copyrighted as a literary work. Again, there's a huge difference. Just as you can't copyright scientific terms, you cannot copyright historical figures, there for if religion is meant to be taken as a work of non-fiction then the figures in it cannot be copyrighted.

Everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work.

Science can be copyrighted in exactly the manner I suggested: I cannot reproduce an article word-for-word that I did not write without violating copyright law. That's the manner I suggested, and that's how the law works.

For like the third time, that's not copyrighting science, it's copyrighting a scientific writing. Is the concept that hard to grasp? You cannot copyright a formula, equation, even a theory, you can however copyright writing or other works based on such topics.

It's not in anyway the same thing as copyrighting the science itself. If you can't understand this you're hopeless.

Azuaron:And, while you can't copyright historical figures, you can copyright the portrayal of historical figures. For instance, if I take a picture of President Obama, I own the copyright to that picture. No one else can use that picture without my permission.

Yes, no shit. I already said this. You aren't copyrighting the historical figure but rather the work the figure was part of.

If you copyright a photo you are not copyrighting the president's image but rather an image, a composition, of him. You are copyrighting the artistic work.

Azuaron:Likewise, if I write a nonfiction book about Joe Johannasmith, a small town grocer, no one else can write a book about Joe Johannasmith unless they go talk to Joe and people who know Joe and do their own research. If everything they know about Joe was acquired through reading my book, even though everything's nonfiction, I own the copyright to that portrayal of Joe Johannasmith, and no one else can write a book about him without doing independent research.

It's almost like I said "everything you list is copyrighting the authors words; not the people, subjects, etc of the work,", and you either didn't get it or just skipped over it. But way to type out a paragraph confirming what I've already wrote, it often helps an argument flow when the person I'm arguing against reiterates my point for me.

I made my point, several times, no more substance needed. Perhaps you just don't see how saying one can "copyright science" is incorrect (how stupid it sounds), or even how vastly different it is than saying "copyright scientific works", which is valid.

I'm sure you'll respond with some more examples which do nothing to illustrate your point and everything to illustrate my own. Perhaps you'll try to claim that it's all semantics -- it's not at all -- in order to get away without yolk on your face. Either way, feel free to get the last word.

GG Game Developer? Creates a game with Gods, to bring religions to a peaceful middle ground?

OT: I think they need to get off their golden thrones and shove it. While i believe disrespecting someones religion is wrong, they arnt doing that. I see nothing wrong with them featuring deities from fictional stories in a neutral light. Its not like theyre cursing, having sex or murdering children.

As of this very moment, Hi-rez is doing nothing wrong. So long as they keep it in a semi-respectful or satirical light, i will support them.

A scientific work is science. Science is also other things, but a work of science, is, by definition, science. When I say that science is copyrightable in the exact manner I explained, and when I explained I used an example of the copyrightability of a scientific work in the JPSP, I mean that science is copyrightable in the exact manner I explained (i.e., a scientific work being copyrightable).

I honestly can't tell if you're intentionally or unintentionally dense; I'm almost hoping for the former at this point.

It seems strange to me that you're claiming I've made your point, except your point was:

If religious texts were classified as fiction, then they could be copyrighted.

But I have shown (repeatedly!) that this is not the case, as religious texts are both too old and (typically) represent the sole source of information for the figures displayed within, and, therefore, any media using those figures would be using the text itself as their sole source, and would, thus, be violating the copyright of that text, regardless of whether the figures within are historical.

There you have it.Video games, a medium religion has been at odds with for sometime, just brought one religion together with another who on any other day would describe the other with words including but not limited to:heathen, blasphemous, sinful, idolizing, false

Rooster Cogburn:There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

A simple question: Do you even comprehend how dissonant the inciting statement was?

Let me lay it out for you.

"I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. So please, go cry in the corner silently."

I can say anything I want about it whenever I want to. --> This indicates that the speaker takes pride in his free speech, and doesn't care who it hurts or offends. While this is legal under the Constitution, with certain very tight restrictions (assuming America here, based on previous discussion, but many other countries possess very similar laws), it is still highly juvenile. Empathy and enlightened self-interest are basic steps in human development, after all.

So please, go cry in the corner silently. --> This indicates that the speaker DOES NOT WISH to hear any other points of view: that the speaker does not respect the rights of others to enjoy the same free he/she enjoys. This is not only juvenile, it speaks of a lack of basic understanding and comprehension of the very purpose of the right of free speech.

On topic: Can Smite be made? Absolutely. Should it be? That's the debate. Obviously, some feel it should be, others disagree, but the artist will produce, and that will be that. What in here required such ferocity?

Now, on to your statement. Throughout much of it, you seem to express the same inability to comprehend that rights for you mean rights for others, and that speech you agree with is not the speech that needs protected most, but rather, it is unpopular speech that needs sanctuary, but I'll assume I'm simply reading your post incorrectly, and focus on this line:

Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea.

Now, I'm not going to disagree. There is dangerous speech (Yelling "fire" in the theater, perhaps, or revealing information about national security.) but these boundaries are very tightly kept by the supreme legal authorities in a free land. What part of "We disagree" requires that society slam down upon them with the burning censor stamp?

I'm waiting eagerly for your reply.

I understand that you think that statement is dissonant. I believe I even understand why you think that. The statement "So please, go cry in the corner silently" does not mean the speaker does not wish to hear any other point of view, it means he does not approve of a particular view. And it certainly does not display a lack of respect for anyone's rights. For them and their views, sure.

In other words, you are turning 'he doesn't agree with me!' into 'he doesn't respect my freedom of speech!'. Please spare me the straw man about my infringing anybody's free speech. No one is trying to censor you or anybody. I hardly thought "just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea" would be a point of controversy. That is not a call for censorship as you seem to believe. In fact the statement assumes the premise that speech is free and unrestricted. Doesn't say a thing about whether it should be.

There is nothing hypocritical about that. Just because speech is free and unrestricted doesn't mean all speech is a good idea. Just because they legally can complain about it does not mean they ought to. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to shut the hell up, at least not in-and-of-itself. And if I think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance that doesn't mean I have to approve of all complaining for any reason forevermore Amen.

There are many ways to express the view that something someone else has said is disagreeable to you, incorrect, or, even, probably shouldn't have been said. Many of these ways can be expressed without making you a hypocrite.

When someone criticizes what you say, and your response is, "I can say what I want, so shut up," you're a hypocrite. It's really about understanding one's personal rights but not extending that understanding to others that makes one a hypocrite in this instance.

Beyond that, other than our one disagreement about what constitutes hypocrisy, we seem to be saying the same thing--if you'd read the part of my post about disagreeable jackasses, you'd know I already brought up a number of the points that you did, and also basically told a number of people that they shouldn't be saying what they were saying, but did so in a way that did not impugn their right to say it or make me a hypocrite.

And, this is getting somewhat recursive, but but if you think it's a good idea to complain about one product for a particular reason in a particular instance, whether or not you approve of other complaints towards other products is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people should be allowed to complain about products.

Saying that one view should be expressed and one shouldn't is not in-and-of-itself hypocritical. And there is certainly no abridgement of freedom of speech here, explicit or implied. To tell someone to shut up is not to impugn their freedoms. To force them to shut up would be. They have the right to speech, they don't have the right to a captive audience.

I did read your whole post of course, but I did not understand how you were reconciling some of the things you said so I just stated the parts I thought were relevant. Sorry if it was redundant or misleading. I don't understand your last paragraph, of course people should be allowed to complain about products. But that doesn't mean a particular complaint is necessarily a good one that demands redress.

so after reading this, i had an idea for a mozes character. now i have to admit i don't know what their skill structure is, so i'm sort of basing this on LoL/Dota.

skill 1: Let my peeople go. mozes places an area of effect radius where two walls of water appear. after 3 seconds the walls collapse, damaging all enemies within the radius.

Skill 2: March trough the desert. slows and damages all enemy players in a radius around him.

Skill 3: Thou shalt not. mozes throws two slabs of rock in a skillshot which damage and stun the target.

ultimate skill: seven plagues. a channeling skill where seven plagues hit the enemy in rapid succession. (some of the would be easy from a visual perspective, like having the enemy attacked by locusts, others more difficult, like turning the nile into blood or killing his firstborn)

i'm thinking he'll be a nuke/control character. what do you think? any other biblical figures to make characters out of?

Revnak:Everyone can and should appreciate my avatar. You know, I was just about to change it to something from league of legends as I have become addicted to that game, but now it just wouldn't be right. Thank you for showing me the way individual who is apparently chilly chill.

You must keep the Rail Tracer. While Vino is an amazing character, Firo just takes the hat for me. That green fedora and suit...oh man...

Pah, Ladd Russo all the way.

Anyway - the problem with these issues is basically that if you aren't especially religious, you're less likely to see the big deal. That doesn't mean you should think it's a big deal, but it means you're at a disadvantage when it comes to deciding how outraged other people should be.

people need to stop being offended by shit. It offends me that they are offended so whos right? who gets to be offended. I can never understand why people feel the need to push what offends them away. if anything offends me I tend to stay away from it and ignore it. For example the way COD is monetized though map after map offends the hell out of me so guess what I dont play it I dont buy it. I dont go on a rampage trying to Ban cod cause it offends me.

I said it before but I'll say it again. People have been using religious works out of context and down right mutilating it in order to create a fictional environment since well before any of us were born. Not even dead religions like the Norse Gods or the Roman pantheon (arguably not even dead since Nova Roma exists), but everything from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism. Look at shows like Supernatural or any number of other media that portray religious figures in a way that doesn't respect their core aspects.

Making them punch each other in the face is no different. I'm not going to say they are wrong for being offended even though I don't understand it, but its not exactly new and there isn't really any reason to think that it should be stopped.

It is my right to say anything, including to ask someone else to shut up. Is it my right to MAKE them shut up? No. But it sure as hell is my right to suggest someone shut up.

Guess what. You called me out on something. That is your right. I am not going to protest against people calling me out on contradictory statements or anything else. Also if you think that makes you a jerk enjoy being a jerk the rest of you life because people make ALLOT of mistakes.

You weren't a jackass, you were someone who saw something he could argue against and did. If you think that makes you an incentive person you are quite far away from being right. In fact you are quite close to losing your right to speak freely seeing as if you offend someone that makes you feel bad.

However sometimes things need to be pointed out. Like here it needs to be pointed out that first of all there are multiple religions here that contradict each other joining forces to protect "religion" in general when in fact each of those religions is a living breathing insult to the other because it claims to be the one true religion and members of those religions often openly mock each other.

We have a pastor saying religion is a fundamental in the US, when in fact the constitution did it's utter best to keep religion from attaining a special position.

That sir is the true hypocrisy, which deserves to be called out with a strong suggestion they stuff it where the sun don't shine.

All this really amounts to is, 'Wahh, my faith is special. Don't mock it or I'll hold my breath till I go blue.'

And I actually have a great deal of respect for the art and history of both Buddhism and Hinduism. I think Hindu mythology is probably one of my personal favourites. I don't know it as well as Greek or Norse. But I really do appreciate the aesthetic.

I am not religious but this is silly, this is not the first time Gods from other religions have been in a video game and I highly doubt it will be the last. This seems kind of like a cry for attention or something like that.

Huh. It's interesting to note the mindset of the posters here. Lots of people seem to not understand the active role many religions teach followers. You don't bury your head in the sand when you see something bad, you go out and try and fix it. What people think is 'bad' varies of course but the idea of going out and righting wrong is the reason religious groups do speak out against things they see as bad. It sounds like many people here are demanding that they not speak there minds and instead be quiet. If you protest racism or sexism you're a hero. If you protest based on religious beliefs you need to shut up. Maybe I'm just wrong though. I'm sure someone will quote me and tell me why.

Anyways... I can appreciate both sides of the argument. The developers most likely don't see the problem since they don't think its belittling anyone while the protesters see this as an inherent offense since you're putting their God into a game and making him into a character to bash virtual avatars with. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. If they took my God, for example: Jesus has been in worse things and so long as its not maliciously done I don't care. I can see how many people would be offended though since it does reduce something that is inherently unknowable and beyond us into a simple game of rock-em-sock-em robots.

On the one hand, it's really cool that Catholics are getting along and teaming up with Hindus.

On the OTHER hand, why are the Catholics complaining? Hi Rez has not put ANY abrahamic religious figures in the game. Yet.

I think they mentioned that they were considering Lucifer/The Devil/Satan/etc.

But even so, I'm Christian, and I couldn't give two shits if they put Jesus and Satan in a game. It's not like that somehow harms me or changes what I believe in any way.

Twilight_guy:Huh. It's interesting to note the mindset of the posters here. Lots of people seem to not understand the active role many religions teach followers. You don't bury your head in the sand when you see something bad, you go out and try and fix it. What people think is 'bad' varies of course but the idea of going out and righting wrong is the reason religious groups do speak out against things they see as bad. It sounds like many people here are demanding that they not speak there minds and instead be quiet. If you protest racism or sexism you're a hero. If you protest based on religious beliefs you need to shut up. Maybe I'm just wrong though. I'm sure someone will quote me and tell me why.

Anyways... I can appreciate both sides of the argument. The developers most likely don't see the problem since they don't think its belittling anyone while the protesters see this as an inherent offense since you're putting their God into a game and making him into a character to bash virtual avatars with. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. If they took my God, for example: Jesus has been in worse things and so long as its not maliciously done I don't care. I can see how many people would be offended though since it does reduce something that is inherently unknowable and beyond us into a simple game of rock-em-sock-em robots.

Revnak:I... I feel so odd about this. On one hand, people of different religious beliefs are respecting one another. On another hand, they're trying to *force* a piece of media to not be made, which I am definitely against. I just don't know whether I should be upset or pleased.

They're not trying to force anything, they're just trying to convince the game makers to have a little respect for their beliefs. They're not being nasty, or rude, they're not being violent, or petitioning the government to make a law. They're just saying "Hey do you think that you could show a little respect, that's one of our gods." I think that they're being reasonable in the way they're handling this. All they want is respect and understanding. What's wrong with that?

I like how uncouth these responses are in comparison to the actual individuals contesting the game. Personally, if they're going to have the decency to be polite about it, then I'd at least have the decency to be polite in my response to them. Also, I like the melodramatic "suppression" of free speech accusations. They're simply speaking their minds about something they find offensive in hopes that someone might comply, good God. If I urge someone not to depict my mother beating the shit out of people in a video game are you going to accuse me of trying to undermine your first amendment rights?

That said, this stuff has been and will continue to be made. I highly doubt their protests will have much of an effect, though it might damage the game's sales a bit (or possibly boost them out of spite purchases).

Except that their "supreme beings" are stories made up by man. Old stories, ancient stories, but stories none the less. That goes for Jesus, Muhammed, Vishnu, Buddha, whoever. It is the game makers who are most in keeping with the origins of these stories, as they are taking the characters and modernizing them, presenting them in new ways to new audiences.

But old men in robes love to tell us what is ok and what is not ok so I am not surprised they are trying to censor the game. I hope against hope they do not succeed in affecting this game one bit.

Revnak:I... I feel so odd about this. On one hand, people of different religious beliefs are respecting one another. On another hand, they're trying to *force* a piece of media to not be made, which I am definitely against. I just don't know whether I should be upset or pleased.

They're not trying to force anything, they're just trying to convince the game makers to have a little respect for their beliefs. They're not being nasty, or rude, they're not being violent, or petitioning the government to make a law. They're just saying "Hey do you think that you could show a little respect, that's one of our gods." I think that they're being reasonable in the way they're handling this. All they want is respect and understanding. What's wrong with that?

Except that "show a little respect" is actually "don't use our god as a playable character in your game". They want to keep content out of the game, I am sure you could find a group from ALL active religions represented in game who want their deity kept out of the game. So does that mean you just can't make a game using gods as playable characters?

Remember the whole Muhammad hullabaloo? Where Comedy Central backed down and refused to air any images of Muhammad because of protests and threats by Muslims? They aired this instead:"The comedy-in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians-instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag."

If they want to ask, let them ask, personally I hope Hi-Rez doesn't change a thing and includes the gods of everyone.

Revnak:I... I feel so odd about this. On one hand, people of different religious beliefs are respecting one another. On another hand, they're trying to force a piece of media to not be made, which I am definitely against. I just don't know whether I should be upset or pleased.

What? Force?

They're appealing to these folks not to make this game. They're criticizing their portrayal of certain deities.

That is all to say: They're exercising their own rights to free speech. Just because someone wants to say something doesn't mean everyone has to agree, or that they must disagree silently. That would defeat the whole point.

freedom of speech and expression. NEXT!im sorry, but if you would want to point out ALL the games that feature gods in a "trivial" way, we would lost a LOT of games.but yeah, it seems to me like a cry for attention, nothing more.

JokerboyJordan:I'm quite surprised at the response of Abrahamic faiths coming to defence of the depiction of Hinduism's pantheon, seeing that their holy scriptures down right accuse polytheistic faiths of being heretics. At least stick to your outdated/ridiculous beliefs people.

I mean honestly, why should Hindus get preferential treatment? Many different religions have had their Gods and/or prophets trivialised, I mean look at Jesus, he's on South Park, Family Guy, freakin' bumper stickers for Christ's sake (pun intended). Not to mention Too Human, God of War, Asura's Wrath, Darksiders, Dante's Inferno etc.

People need to learn that nothing should be off limits.

Parodies like South Park or Dogma put some effort into their use of deities, to me thats the opposite of trivialization. Putting God on a bumper sticker thats just cheap. I get less insulted by a well done parody than I would if deities were used as marketing gimmicks or action figures.

I'm torn on the matter, I think it depends on the execution. I didn't mind the use of angels in Diablo 3, maybe because they were kicking arse and were well developed. But I can see what the Hindu representatives are getting at. It does cheapen the subject matter if people mostly associate Kali with a video game. On the other hand some of those hindu deities are perfect game material...

Nothing should be off-limit, but it's also ok to ask that deities are treated with some care and respect. That doesn't mean they are excempt from parodies or criticism quite the opposite.

Nothing wrong w/wanting respect and understanding. But that's not *all* that they are asking for. If the point of the game was to ridicule their beliefs and those that hold said belief then they'd have a point. But its a game that just happens to portray hindu characters in a way other than what they consider to be 'official' and 'true'. Smite simply added those characters to their own fiction, but neither in a manner nor w/the intent to ridicule.

No one thinks they are ridiculing or belittling zeus, because no one believes in zeus. And Smite and crew aren't doing anything different w/Kali than they are w/zeus.

Anyways, its called a strawman argument. Incorrectly portray your opponent as saying X, then argue against X (even though in reality, they aren't saying X at all). In this case -> paint Smite and crew as doing something that 'disrespects their religion'. And then argue about whether or not disrespecting religion is bad. Most people would agree that disrespecting an accepted religion is bad. But that's not really the issue. The real question is - is that what Smite and crew are actually doing? Because I don't think they are.

(People should be free to ridicule a religion, look at what happens in states around the world where people are not allowed to speak against official religion. But we're not talking about what they should be allowed to do, but what would be the civil respectful thing to do, whether it was in good taste or not, whether or not its disrespectful).

Ridiculing hindus would be disrespecting them, no doubt. Indirectly ridiculing them by creating a fiction whose obvious point is to paint hinduism as stupid, would also be an act of disrespect. But neither is the case here. There is no attempt at ridicule or belittlement. South park, as a counter example, ridicules many religions (and they should certainly be able to do so, but one would have to admit that they are on the ridicule side of the spectrum).

Including Hindu gods into Smites fiction, even though it may be inconsistent w/Hindu teachings, is not, by itself, disrespect. If that were the case, protestants would be disrespecting catholics because they incorrectly portray purgatory, transubstantiation, what it takes to be saved, etc.... Jewish people portray jesus in a way inconsistent christian 'truth', are they disrespecting christians? Mormons portray all sorts of christian icons (jesus/satan/the angel gabriel, etc...) in a way inconsistent w/christian ideas of what is 'true', are they disrespecting christians? Atheists argue against there being a god at all, are they being disrespectful? Its ok for the theist to tell the atheist he's wrong and there is a god, but not ok for the reverse? The movie What Dreams May Come starring robin williams incorrectly portrays heaven in the eyes of believers of the scripture, is that movie disrespectful? How about SPAWN? Where do we draw the line?

Sure, its a sign that Smite and crew don't believe in Kali, as they are not treating kali w/the same reverance that a true believer would. But that is not the same as disrespect. And they shouldn't have to treat the idea of Kali w/the same reverance that a true believer would. I don't know where the line is that I would consider one to be in bad taste, but wherever that line is, Smite is well on the respectful side in my eyes.